Will government reach for carrot or stick?

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/05/2024 (859 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

We’ve all had bosses who are domineering and dictatorial, and more likely to reach for the stick than the carrot, and we’ve all had bosses who work constructively and collaboratively to get the best possible outcomes.

We all know which we’d prefer to work for.

As it turns out, governments fall between these two poles, too. The province, using its constitutional authority, lords substantial power over a whole range of actors that lack this cast-in-stone authority. The province has the power and thus sets the tone: does it approach problems collaboratively or address issues by reaching for the stick?

In British Columbia, for example, the provincial government has built a long-standing collaborative relationship with municipal governments. Despite the potential for amalgamation of many cities in the Lower Mainland, successive provincial governments have yielded to local opposition to this idea. Instead, a unique set of structures—including the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation—has evolved to allow cities to have a say in decisions affecting them.

Contrast this with Ontario, where the provincial government has forced amalgamations on unhappy cities, including the 1998 amalgamation of several municipalities into the “mega-city” of Toronto. In one of the more notable examples of a provincial government flexing its muscle, the government cut the number of wards in Toronto — in the middle of the 2018 municipal election campaign!

Here in Manitoba, a recent episode illustrates how collaboration between the province and other actors can build trust, while a failure to do so can achieve the opposite.

The government’s Advanced Education Administration Amendment Act passed second reading in the legislature on April 18. Among other proposed changes, the amendment act allows the government to reduce funding to a post-secondary educational institution that fails to adopt or effectively implement a sexual violence policy that is in line with the act. Post-secondary institutions would also need to review the policies regularly and make public any reviews of those policies.

Post-secondary institutions are required to have sexual violence policies on the books. Further, they must already clearly state how they raise awareness of sexual violence and respond to specific incidents.

Sexual violence is a profound darkness and universities, colleges and other post-secondary institutions need robust policies to address it. But the proposed act has two problems.

First, there was little or no consultation with university administrations, nor the Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations, prior to the bill coming forward. Second, the proposed changes threaten to slash funding to post-secondary educational institutions that fail to meet the government’s targets. Under the provisions of the act, the government could cut grants or other forms of payment to post-secondary institutions that don’t live up to the government’s expectation.

This proposal was fiercely opposed by the Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations, and members of the public turned out to express opposition at a recent public hearing.

It raises the question: why is it necessary for the government to first reach for the stick in the form of cutting funding? Especially when there are already mechanisms—notably though the largely government-appointed boards of governors — to address any perceived shortcomings in existing policies?

This is a particularly important question for universities. Universities receive significant funding from the province, but they must also remain independent in their operations.

Advanced Education Minister Renee Cable defended the government’s proposal, arguing a tough enforcement tool was needed. She also downplayed the possibility the power to claw back funding would be used: “I think everyone would agree that it’s not in anyone’s interest to pull back a grant.” But that raises the question of why even wield the stick in the first place?

Does the government have the power and authority to make these proposed changes if it really wants to? Absolutely.

But it is worth it for members of the government to think about, in these still-early days, what kinds of relationships they are building with other actors, including municipalities, school boards and educational institutions. Will they be collaborative and constructive, recognizing that these different bodies have unique roles and needs?

Or, will the government get into the habit of reaching for the stick?

Royce Koop is a professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba and academic director of the Centre for Social Science Research and Policy.